Ethically-Sourced Copy-Pasta Client.

[Astarisk]

Says the man who has private client and refuses to share it with community. All private clients should be banned and their developers and users also banned. You are not the good guy, but a mere villain.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in regards to a private client. My Ethically sourced client is posted on Github and is free to all. Once again go derail your own thread. I'm trying to provide support here for those that want to make the switch.

[shubla]

I see no difference in providing closed source drm client publicly to people, when compared to some groups having their private clients, which are closed source and not available to public. I'd consider DRM and closed source even less of an offense if the result is publicly available.

[Astarisk]

I see no difference in providing closed source drm client publicly to people, when compared to some groups having their private clients, which are closed source and not available to public. I'd consider DRM and closed source even less of an offense if the result is publicly available.

I would consider reading the licensing agreement before making such claims -- You may talk to Loftar directly about how he feels about this. If you are unable to read I'll give you a quick guide on it. Now cease and persist derailing my thread. If people want an opt-in they can use your client - if they don't they can use mine. It's as simple as that.
https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v3-(lgpl-3)

edit: fixed the link to be more correct

[APXEOLOG]

Some players are glad to use food info, world maps, free custom clients etc. but are selfish assholes who instantly refuse to give anything back when asked? Even though the only reason not contributing back stubborness etc. as privacy of the user is taken good care of.

1. It is a good tone to conduct properly when you do a community product development. If you introduce a controversial feature you should provide a way to enable/disable it. Those "don't use it if you don't like it" words are actually seen badly by most of the governments in the world
2. When you provide something for free first and later suddenly start to forcefully "monetize" it people will never like it. The whole GDPR appeared because of the big companies which first attracted users with free products and then started to sell private info to the 3rd-parties (very similar to the current situation). When I've contributed food-info and auto-mapper to the community I've never asked for anything in return. Free means free, no strings attached.
3. I've seen you wrote that you use player coordinates/hats to draw online players on the map, but the public map does not have them. I assume that you have a private version of the map which shows all online users of your client? What is the purpose of it and who has access to it? How do you control this data? This is a huge potential security breach which can lead to player's deaths and raids.

[shubla]

I assume that you have a private version of the map which shows all online users of your client? What is the purpose of it and who has access to it? How do you control this data? This is a huge potential security breach which can lead to player's deaths and raids.

Data is only kept for few seconds and sent to people who have map with the given token open in their browser. After that no any player data is kept. (Except hat icons which are cached, but not connected to the player who had them in any way).

One would think that I have map with location of everybody, and it would certainly be interesting to see how people are distributed in the map, but I don't. Partially because I'm too lazy to modify it, partially because it wouldn't maybe be what I should be doing.

[Astarisk]

I've merged with the latest update. You can download the entire client from the first link or just get the latest jar in the link below that and replace it over the old one if you want a speedier download. I'll try to get a more convenient updating solution going in the future along with a fix to the performance as it seems to be significantly slower than default for me -- but this might take time to figure out. If you have seen such performance issues to let me know.

[mamotromico]

I see no difference in providing closed source drm client publicly to people, when compared to some groups having their private clients, which are closed source and not available to public. I'd consider DRM and closed source even less of an offense if the result is publicly available.

Releasing a closed source client would break the GPL licensing.

[shubla]

I see no difference in providing closed source drm client publicly to people, when compared to some groups having their private clients, which are closed source and not available to public. I'd consider DRM and closed source even less of an offense if the result is publicly available.

Releasing a closed source client would break the GPL licensing.

But license is a mere suggestion, enforced by devs in the last hand. And I cannot really comprehend why having closed source DRM client publicly available would be any worse than having private client that is not available for all.

[mamotromico]

I see no difference in providing closed source drm client publicly to people, when compared to some groups having their private clients, which are closed source and not available to public. I'd consider DRM and closed source even less of an offense if the result is publicly available.

Releasing a closed source client would break the GPL licensing.

But license is a mere suggestion, enforced by devs in the last hand. And I cannot really comprehend why having closed source DRM client publicly available would be any worse than having private client that is not available for all.

Open Source licenses are not a 'mere suggestion'. Sure it is up to the devs to sue on breakage, but it is not a simple suggestion. GPL does not force everything that is made with it to be openly distributed, as in be on github, it forces any distribution kind to also include the source code. Read the license.

[Astarisk]

I see no difference in providing closed source drm client publicly to people, when compared to some groups having their private clients, which are closed source and not available to public. I'd consider DRM and closed source even less of an offense if the result is publicly available.

Releasing a closed source client would break the GPL licensing.

But license is a mere suggestion, enforced by devs in the last hand. And I cannot really comprehend why having closed source DRM client publicly available would be any worse than having private client that is not available for all.

Look here people, this is the guy you are trusting with your data. Someone who wants to throw out incorrect facts and throws a tantrum when someone releases a client stripped of the invasive "community" features he wants to advertise. If this was for the community you would have no problem with what has been done here. Once again I'll plead to the moderators to remove his posts from my thread and to move them over to the relevant one -- I've asked several times more than nicely for him to cease and desist in posting here. I'm actually trying to provide real support for those who are having issues in getting the client to run.